Live data from Hacker News

University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

time.com

211–220 of 444 posts

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#211
post #189
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see." But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being off…

I read the wikipedia you linked, specifically about trigger warnings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger#Trigger_warning... But your statement: > They're to prevent panic attacks. Seems to counter the arguments in the link: > Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[13] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are d…

There's a difference between exposure therapy (conducted with a trained therapist or just in a deliberate self-directed way), and having a panic attack in the middle of your day because of an unexpected stimulus.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#212
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, your freedom ends when you diminishing someone else freedom. Harassing and threatening do not make people less free. Even Mozart was considered offensive some times, some people was triggered and described his music as immoral . So, freedom of expression should be without any restriction, except when it stepping on freedom of other people.

But that's a different topic. "You can say anything you want" is different from "you can say anything you want in our meeting ". Saying that Mozart can compose anything he wants is different from saying that the symphony has to play it, and that I have to go.

Yes, but in education, this is dangerous way. Whole point of science is to critique, if you are triggered by facts, and university bans "hostile" ideas you can not even discuss it. There is a place and time, but you should have a right to oppose creationism, for example. At least you should be not afraid to ask questions or state facts. And if everything is safe space, and everybody is triggered this is totally oppose to scientific principles and contradicts whole point of education.

edit: "you can say anything you want in our meeting" in practical terms, if there is a meeting about wage gap, you should be able to state facts that contradicts narrative, and not be afraid that you will be force to apologize for trigerring or even quit university

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#213
post #140
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[0] http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html" from the list: - Pregnancy/childbirth - Death or dying - Slimy things It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile.

> It's very difficult not to dismiss this as infantile. Which is, in turn, why many people don't take these things seriously. Of course, perhaps there is a justification for "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" in colleges, but the issue of whether those 1) belong in the classroom as opposed to elsewhere on campus, and 2) should be a feature of colleges at all, is completely derailed by things like this.

At the same time, in a country that values free speech people are allowed to have idiotic opinions. The fact that people are giving those opinions credence because they are "on the Internet" is probably closer to the issue.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. Because they are involve quite similar problems (safe for whom and from what ? Warnings for which specific of the billions of potential PTSD triggers ?) and are typically advocated for together, by the same people, as linked demands, to serve similar broad purposes. > But trigger warnings…

>> But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy. >No, they aren't. They are neither simple, nor are they, You are mostly right, but there is danger here. Traditional courtesy and political correctness do overlap a lot -- they tell us to do the same sort of things. They are not the same. As you suggest, personal consideration is not the same as political sensitivity. But when the backlash against PC comes,…

Clarifying question: What do you mean by "fear of being PC"? I'm a bit confused about the scenario you're describing.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#215
post #22

This is tough . With the aspirations of "civility and mutual respect" along with "rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement", I would hope any truly egregious edge cases disappear. In the middle, I think people have the right to remove themselves from discussions—civil or otherwise—that they don't want to listen to or engage. But that right doesn't limit others' ability to have those selfsame discussions in…

Its not tough at all. So called trigger warnings never existed until recently and very few people had problems. I never heard of anyone breaking down in class due to difficult subject matters in my 5 years at university (or after).

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#216
post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

It's just not an equivalent analogy. Explosions sound and light are somewhat recreating a war time experience. The classroom equivalent for trigger warnings would be telling veterans that a discussion of a war in history class was coming.

Further, presumably professional medicine recognizes fireworks as a common trigger for war-induced PTSD.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#217
post #24
post #2

What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always seem to get lumped together in discussions like this. It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or even consistent with their goals. But trigger warnings are a rea…

> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up. And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning? If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts? When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and discuss…

Slippery slope arguments are too easy to make. Let's start with being considerate towards veterans with PTSD and see how that goes.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#218
post #73
post #22

This is tough . With the aspirations of "civility and mutual respect" along with "rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement", I would hope any truly egregious edge cases disappear. In the middle, I think people have the right to remove themselves from discussions—civil or otherwise—that they don't want to listen to or engage. But that right doesn't limit others' ability to have those selfsame discussions in…

> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see." But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being off…

If a person cannot read a piece of literature without having a panic attack then perhaps they are not physically able to take a course in, say, English. It is up to the university to decide what it does with this kind of student: do they choose to not admit or graduate students who are incapable of completing the degree requirements? Do they tailor the degrees to students with special needs and make exceptions? Do they insist these students take a leave of absence and receive treatment before they continue?

All of these responses seem reasonable. If a student has such a unique life experience that they are not capable of completing standard university coursework, then the onus is on them to make that known to professors or administrators and come to some compromise. It is not the responsibility of the university to label and restructure its courses to acknowledge that there is a tiny fraction of the population that cannot participate in their education without severe distress.

Anything could be a trigger. Anything involving criminal justice could be a trigger for someone falsely (or rightfully!) imprisoned. A rape scene could be a trigger for a rape victim. Certain feminist literature could be a trigger for someone whose life was ruined through a false rape accusation. Someone who was recently dumped or cheated on could be triggered by discussing relationships. Perhaps a physics class triggers someone afflicted by severe existential angst -- entropy always increases? Domestic violence, child abuse, war, general violence, bullying, racism, torture -- many of these, things every college student should consider and think about before graduating -- are all triggers for someone.

So we should really put a trigger warning on every course. Better, let's make that trigger warning describe roughly what's going to be in the course and what students can expect out of it. Better yet, maybe put the grading scheme, reading list, and the rest of the administrative information about the course in it. We could call it some kind of nonsense word so as not to offend the people who hate trigger warnings or the people who love them. How about "syllabus".

Course syllabi already have a generally accurate description of course content so students may choose whether or not to expose themselves to any given material or prepare themselves.

The fact that a course is a college course and discusses human interaction at all should serve as enough as a trigger warning for anyone -- there could be triggering material in it. Period. Even if a class is about cold war economics, a student could bring up rape or racism in discussion.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#219
post #181
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see." But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild discomfort. They're to prevent panic attacks . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of course if you portray them as being about being off…

> They're to prevent panic attacks. That might have been the original intent of a "trigger warning", but their sheer prevalence today indicates that this is either no longer true or else we have nothing less than a massive public health emergency that we should be dropping everything else to work to address.

It does seem that way. It's kind of how a few people have food allergies, but a larger number of people have foods they refuse to eat despite not having allergies. It's not uncommon to find out that someone who merely has a preference to avoid an ingredient has been fibbing and calling it an "allergy" just to smooth things over socially.

This is really frustrating for someone with a genuine allergy because you feel drowned out by all the "fake" allergies that are just preferences and as a result sometimes people take allergies less seriously because they assume your "allergy" is just a preference, or just generally take it less seriously. For example, if someone asks you if something contains gluten, knowing nothing else, what would you estimate are the chances they are actually seriously allergic to it? These days, with the popularity of avoiding gluten in the west, maybe below 50%. This is a scary situation for anyone with a genuine allergy.

I'm sure it's just as frustrating for people with genuine PTSD or other situations where real mental health trauma could occur, to be drowned out and lumped in with all these folks who merely experience mild discomfort at discussing a topic.

So, a plea -- if you don't genuinely suffer from a serious physical or mental health response to a situation, but merely mild discomfort, be honest and just say you don't like something. You're making it worse for people with genuine problems when you lie and call it a genuine medical problem.

If you're not sure, a good rule of thumb is if you haven't been to or plan to soon go to a doctor (or really want to, but can't for some reason eg financial) to discuss the problem, it must not be disturbing your life enough to count as a real malady.

Re: University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’

#220
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. Viewed in this light, the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism: allowing for, rather than actively silencing, diverse political discourse. This is in stark contrast to neighbor Chicago school DePaul, who last month blocked[0] Jewish conservative minority voice Ben Shapiro fr…

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to s…

I think your description is accurate but your analogy is tragic. What kind of a mess have we got ourselves into that that the University is now comparable with retail?
Post reply on HN